Questions for Comey: Former Top DOJ Attorney Who Oversaw NSA Spying Under Bush is Nominated to Become Next FBI Director

Current Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert Mueller’s term is expiring (again), and the Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing to question the nominee to replace Mueller, James Comey. The FBI is deeply linked with the NSA's unconstitutional domestic spying, and Comey was the Deputy Attorney General and Acting Attorney General under President Bush who approved almost all of the aspects of the secretiveprograms that collect Americans' information, emails, and phone calls. One such program—uncovered in a leaked top secret order of the secret court overseeing the spying—uses Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to order Verizon Business Network Services to send all of its customers’ call information to the NSA.

Tomorrow's hearing is another chance for the Senate to further investigate these programs. A coalition of over 100 civil liberties organizations and 500,000 people have come together to demand a special investigatory committee, more accountability, and legislative fixes to end the unconstitutional program of domestic spying. (Join them now.) We've already drafted questions that Congress must ask about these programs. With the upcoming hearing, the Senators should get Comey's word that he will stop the unconstitutional programs facilitated by the FBI.

Here are a some questions to ask Comey:

1) Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, one of the original authors of Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, has stated that the FBI's use of Section 215 is an "abuse of the law." Will you make a commitment today that, if confirmed, you will stop the FBI from using Section 215 to collect calling information, or any other information, about Americans in bulk?

2) Articles by both the Wall Street Journal(paywall) and New York Times revealed that the secret court overseeing the spying, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court), doesn’t believe that communications metadata is protected under the Fourth Amendment or First Amendment of the Constitution. Do you think the FISA Court is right?

3) Officials have stated that the Supreme Court case Smith v. Maryland supports the constitutionality of the 215 program. Of course, Smith only considered the Fourth Amendment implications of calling information for a single subscriber. Do you believe that the constitutional analysis changes when calling information is collected by the government in bulk? Is the constitutional analysis different for any information collected in bulk? What are the implications for the First Amendment when it comes to collecting information in bulk?

4) Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act allows the FBI to obtain "any tangible things" that are relevant to an authorized national security investigation. Articles by both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times revealed that the secret court overseeing the spying, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court), has vastly expanded the ability of law enforcement to sidestep Fourth Amendment protections by redefining "relevant."Can you explain how my call records are relevant to an authorized national security investigation? How are all Americans' calling information relevant?

5) Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act allows the FBI to obtain "any tangible things" that are relevant to an authorized national security investigation. Prior to this nomination, you were the Acting Attorney General of the Department of Justice and well versed in national security and constitutional law. Can you explain how "any tangible things" could include information that a communications company would not otherwise produce, record, or store in a tangible form?

6) The top secret order compelling Verizon to give the NSA all Americans' calling information asks for calling information to be provided on an “ongoing, daily basis.” Yet, Section 215 only permits the production of “tangible things.” Can you explain how an order issued under Section 215 can compel the production of something that does not yet exist—indeed, the very definition of an intangible thing?

7) In light of the revelations of widespread, dragnet, unconstitutional spying, are you personally satisfied that the government—Congress, the Bush and Obama Administrations, and the FISA court system—has disclosed enough about these domestic surveillance programs and the law that sustains them to meet the standards of the rule of law in a democratic society?

Related Updates

EFF continues our fight to have the U.S. courts protect you from mass government surveillance. Today in our landmark Jewel v. NSA case, we filed our opening brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, asserting that the courts don’t have to turn a blind eye to the...

Earlier this week, Oakland’s City Council voted unanimously to ban local government use of face surveillance. The amendment to Oakland’s Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance will make Oakland the third U.S. city to take this critical step toward protecting the safety, privacy, and civil liberties of its residents. Local...

The city council of Somerville, Massachusetts voted unanimously last week to become the first city on the East Coast to ban government face surveillance. It is encouraging to see cities across the country take this proactive step in anticipating the surveillance problems on the horizon and head them off in...

Sacramento – On Wednesday, June 26, at 10 am, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will urge the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to approve an audit on the use of automated license plate readers (ALPR) by state law enforcement. ALPRs are camera systems that scan the license plates of vehicles...

Sacramento, California—On Tuesday, June 11, at 8:30 am, EFF Grassroots Advocacy Organizer Nathan Sheard will testify before the California Senate Public Safety Committee in support of a measure to prohibit law enforcement from using facial recognition in body cams.Following San Francisco’s historic ban on police use of the...

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted today by 8-to-1 to make San Francisco the first major city in the United States to ban government use of face surveillance technology. This historic measure applies to all city departments. The Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance also takes an important step toward...

Government use of many surveillance technologies, and especially face surveillance, can invade privacy and chill free speech. It also disproportionately harms already marginalized communities: it increases the likelihood that they will be entangled with police, ICE, and other agencies with a history of abuse, bias, and unlawful violence. San Francisco’s...

Thanks to a recent ruling by Fairfax County Circuit Court Judge Robert J. Smith, drivers in Fairfax County, Virginia need not worry that local police are maintaining ALPR records of their travels for work, prayer, protest or play. Earlier this month, Judge Smith ordered an injunction against the use...

Oakland, California—On Friday, March 29, at 9:00 am, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will tell a federal court that its clients should be allowed to proceed with their case challenging the constitutionality of NSA spying. The government’s latest attempts to prevent the court from evaluating the legality of surveilling millions...